http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/24/iraq.main/index.html
Uhm, WTF?

Why did they begin to meet their demands?

I TOLD YOU SO.

Something was fishy about this one from the start.  Is she a CIA operative?  Maybe related to someone very rich and powerful?

It just goes to show how the USA is weak and supports terrorism.

We're sending the wrong message to the terrorists.

It's no worse than the "we are terrified of you" message that everybody has been sending for years.

So what would be an effective "fuck off you crazy middle easterns!" message?  (NOTE: that 'crazy middle easterns' thing refers to the middle easterns that are crazy, it does not mean that all middle easterns are crazy)

I can think of one, but I don't think everyone would like it

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143138#msg143138 date=1138228870]
So what would be an effective "fuck off you crazy middle easterns!" message?  (NOTE: that 'crazy middle easterns' thing refers to the middle easterns that are crazy, it does not mean that all middle easterns are crazy)
[/quote]

I don't think there are any effective ways to stop terrorism by force.  Perhaps your country should pursue a different method?

The 5 female captives are not the only prisoners that are being reviewed and released. Officials say that this has nothing to do with Jill Carroll and that these prisoners were up for review before Jill Carrolls abduction.

The liberal media (CNN in this case) that spins every story out there which forces the public to misconstrued things is the result of this kind of nonsense.

Adron, you are wrong. The only thing that this shows is that you are ready to bash the United States the 1st chance you get without knowing any details. This also shows that your posts should never be taken seriously unless proven otherwise.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143160#msg143160 date=1138237051]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143138#msg143138 date=1138228870]
So what would be an effective "fuck off you crazy middle easterns!" message?  (NOTE: that 'crazy middle easterns' thing refers to the middle easterns that are crazy, it does not mean that all middle easterns are crazy)
[/quote]

I don't think there are any effective ways to stop terrorism by force.  Perhaps your country should pursue a different method?
[/quote]

Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143163#msg143163 date=1138238112]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143160#msg143160 date=1138237051]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143138#msg143138 date=1138228870]
So what would be an effective "fuck off you crazy middle easterns!" message?  (NOTE: that 'crazy middle easterns' thing refers to the middle easterns that are crazy, it does not mean that all middle easterns are crazy)
[/quote]

I don't think there are any effective ways to stop terrorism by force.  Perhaps your country should pursue a different method?
[/quote]

Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?
[/quote]Thats what I was getting to, but on a larger scale

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143163#msg143163 date=1138238112]
Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?
[/quote]

If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists. 

Besides, I didn't say "violence won't stop a terrorist", obviusly it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different.  You can kill one, but more will take his place.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143190#msg143190 date=1138243268]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143163#msg143163 date=1138238112]
Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?
[/quote]

If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists. 

Besides, I didn't say "violence won't stop a terrorist", obviusly it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different.  You can kill one, but more will take his place.
[/quote]
Not if you kill them all

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143193#msg143193 date=1138243823]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143190#msg143190 date=1138243268]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143163#msg143163 date=1138238112]
Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?
[/quote]

If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists. 

Besides, I didn't say "violence won't stop a terrorist", obviusly it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different.  You can kill one, but more will take his place.
[/quote]
Not if you kill them all
[/quote]

Read the line carefully, "You can kill one, but more will take his place". 

For bonus marks, explain how you could kill them all.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143198#msg143198 date=1138244103]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143193#msg143193 date=1138243823]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143190#msg143190 date=1138243268]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143163#msg143163 date=1138238112]
Oh yeah, so if an Israeli soldier shoots a terrorist that is running towards a check point with a bomb strapped to him in the head and the terrorist dies before ever harming anyone is not an effective way to stop the terrorist?
[/quote]

If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists. 

Besides, I didn't say "violence won't stop a terrorist", obviusly it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different.  You can kill one, but more will take his place.
[/quote]
Not if you kill them all
[/quote]

Read the line carefully, "You can kill one, but more will take his place". 

For bonus marks, explain how you could kill them all.
[/quote]
I suppose you couldn't kill "them all" because there would be some here too...BUT, since those that are here ARE here we could control them much easier.
To eliminate 'them all' we could simply destroy the entire middle east

The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.

[quote author=dx link=topic=14001.msg143201#msg143201 date=1138244659]
The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.
[/quote]heh, I'm guessing coincidence really means "in direct relation to"

I believe it was Bush who said that, I'm not fully sure so I don't want to go and start bashing him  ???

Probably someone in the news just speculating.

But I totally believe that it is related, related & retarded

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143161#msg143161 date=1138237702]
Adron, you are wrong. The only thing that this shows is that you are ready to bash the United States the 1st chance you get without knowing any details. This also shows that your posts should never be taken seriously unless proven otherwise.
[/quote]

You already proved that your posts can never be taken seriously a long time ago. And that there is a very convenient "coincidence" that the US has engineered to pretend to not give in to terrorist demands.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143205#msg143205 date=1138245232]
Probably someone in the news just speculating.

But I totally believe that it is related, related & retarded
[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=topic=14001.msg143219#msg143219 date=1138253638]
You already proved that your posts can never be taken seriously a long time ago. And that there is a very convenient "coincidence" that the US has engineered to pretend to not give in to terrorist demands.
[/quote]

Woah, Adron and crAz3D can't be on the same side! 

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143193#msg143193 date=1138243823]
Not if you kill them all
[/quote]

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143234#msg143234 date=1138283864]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143193#msg143193 date=1138243823]
Not if you kill them all
[/quote]

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.
[/quote]

Exactly! 

If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA. 

[quote author=dx link=topic=14001.msg143201#msg143201 date=1138244659]
The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.
[/quote]

Before the 5 female prisoner's coincidental release, I felt something was different about the White House's response toward Jill Carroll being taken hostage.  I said it in another thread and it is still there.

The coincidental release of 5 female prisoners, which happens to be part of what the captors are demanding, is of no surprise to me.  I expect further concessions to the terrorists for Jill Carroll's release.

Why?  I do not know.  But read the text of the latest news on this.  It states that support for her release has come from everyone, and goes down a list of groups around the world asking her to be unharmed and freed.

I really believe the US has called in all favors worldwide on her.  So why is this different?  They have not done this for any other captured person.  Why her?

Perhaps we only negotiate with terrorists when they kidnap the correct person.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143241#msg143241 date=1138289512]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143234#msg143234 date=1138283864]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143193#msg143193 date=1138243823]
Not if you kill them all
[/quote]

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.
[/quote]

Exactly! 

If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA. 

[/quote]
I didn't say nuke 'em, if we did then there would be too much nuclear fallout & it'd be obnoxious to go in & take the oil ;)
We could just contine what Saddam did & use chemicals to kill off the people

You can't kill them ALL, you can pick them off until they collapse from no funding/leadership

You divide them up and pick off thier big boys and they'll run and hide like they're mostly doing now. We're embarassing them and they hate it which is why they abduct people and set off pathetic car bombs. So let's see, they went from flying planes into buildings to car bombs. That seems like a step in the right direction imho.

Listen, I don't know about you guys but when someone attacks my country I for one want revenge and I want whoever did it tortured in the most inhumane way possible.  If someone attacked YOUR country and killed THOUSANDS of people, you'd be pretty ticked too.
We have muscles and we can flex them whenever the hell we want to beat the shit out of whoever the hell we want, and no one is going to stop us from killing terrorists regardless of what they "think" because plain and simple they weren't in the US on 9/11 to watch people die as the towers collapsed.

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.

The people taking American hostages such as Jill Carroll are doing what?  Demanding they get to attack the US again?  No, they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity, their wives and girlfriends, and mothers.  If your wife/girlfriend/mother were held by Saddam Hussein, who had invaded your state and installed a new government of his own, what would YOU do?  Take this question very seriously because that is what the hostage-takers are facing.  These people are defending their homeland and attempting to recover their families from the invaders.

Every time some gets you to equate Iraq with 9/11, we lose.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14001.msg143256#msg143256 date=1138295778]
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.
[/quote]
PSSST, we're talking about terrorism, terrorists attacked NYC on 9/11/01.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14001.msg143242#msg143242 date=1138290106]
[quote author=dx link=topic=14001.msg143201#msg143201 date=1138244659]
The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.
[/quote]

Before the 5 female prisoner's coincidental release, I felt something was different about the White House's response toward Jill Carroll being taken hostage.  I said it in another thread and it is still there.

The coincidental release of 5 female prisoners, which happens to be part of what the captors are demanding, is of no surprise to me.  I expect further concessions to the terrorists for Jill Carroll's release.

Why?  I do not know.  But read the text of the latest news on this.  It states that support for her release has come from everyone, and goes down a list of groups around the world asking her to be unharmed and freed.

I really believe the US has called in all favors worldwide on her.  So why is this different?  They have not done this for any other captured person.  Why her?

Perhaps we only negotiate with terrorists when they kidnap the correct person.
[/quote]

Exactly, let's see if we could negotiate with a black hostage? Pfft.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14001.msg143256#msg143256 date=1138295778]
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.

The people taking American hostages such as Jill Carroll are doing what?  Demanding they get to attack the US again?  No, they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity, their wives and girlfriends, and mothers.  If your wife/girlfriend/mother were held by Saddam Hussein, who had invaded your state and installed a new government of his own, what would YOU do?  Take this question very seriously because that is what the hostage-takers are facing.  These people are defending their homeland and attempting to recover their families from the invaders.

Every time some gets you to equate Iraq with 9/11, we lose.
[/quote]

Let's see, terrorists attacked 9/11 and terrorists are attacking soldiers in iraq. I'm not arguing Saddam vs 9/11 I'm arguing Terrorists vs Terrorist and why the US chooses to go after them. I thought I had made that pretty clear but obviously not. Now, the way I see it they should be negotiating with US since frankly they dont hold anything that we want. They are at our mercy not the other way around and I think they only options they should have is surrender or die.

We have iago tell us that there is no "effective ways to stop terrorism by force"
I gave him an example of an Israeli soldier shooting and killing a terrorist before he has a chance to set off his bomb. iago comes back and says "If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists." I'm glad iago can guess on the end result of an "If".
Let's see, United States attacked Afghanistan (a terrorist's country) and we have not had an act of terrorism in the United States since then!

iago also wrote "I didn't say 'violence won't stop a terrorist', obviously it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different." According to him "force" will not stop terror attacks but "violence" will. According to iago he believes that there is no relation between a terrorist and terrorism.
This sort of non-logical liberal thinking is why I consider it to be a mental disability.

Let me try to explain this using logic:
A terrorist commits an act of terror. This behavior is referred to as an act of terrorism.
When a terrorist is killed he is no longer able to commit any or any more acts of terror.
If no acts of terror are committed there is no more terrorism.

Also notice the word selection of liberals, in this case iago used the word "violence" to my example. So he implies that when an Israeli soldier kills a terrorist before he blows himself up he is committing an act of violence and not defending himself.

iago uses the argument that if you kill one more will come. You are right more will come, but there is not an unlimited amount of terrorists so in that case you kill more that come. It's called discouraging the enemy.

Pay attention to the things iago writes; "If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA." Should we take him and his arguments seriously?

It seems that logic is the liberal's worst enemy so they do not support it.

We have Arta screaming that "the war on terrorism is pointless" when in fact since the United States declared the war on terrorism the United Stated has not had another terror attack. To me it's not pointless and it works.

We have Grok tell us that he felt something different about the United States releasing multiple prisoners that included 5 females amongst them. He writes "is of no surprise to me" about the release of 5 females amongst other prisoners that officials stated have nothing to do with Jill Carroll's abductors demands. All this because he had a feeeeeeling. Just to remind you that her abductors wanted all woman prisoners released and not just 5 but who knows, Grok had a feeeeeeling. We all know when a liberal has a feeling it's as good as a fact to them.

Jill Carroll is a liberal Muslim-extremist sympathizer and by my standards is an anti-American reporter. We should not commit any troops to go search for her. To me a soldier's life should not be put in danger just because some nut case went to Iraq fully understanding the dangers got what she deserved. Hamas made a request for her safe release, you have to wonder why they would do that for an American when they despise Americans. This is an old Arabic saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

As for Grok trying to piece a conspiracy theory together I wish him luck, maybe he will find aliens being kept at Area 51. Grok do you have a feeling about Area 51?

Once again notice the language used by liberals, in this case Grok. Grok wrote "they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity". He does not call them prisoners he calls them "hostages". I'm guessing Grok had a feeeeeeling about them being innocent and them being held in jail for no reason. He must have had a feeeeeeling about them being honest Iraqi citizens that the evil United States snatched from the streets of Iraq and thrown in prison. Once again an example of how a feeeeeeling is just as good as a fact for a liberal.

After all of this I figured something out; if you want to make the liberals angry all you have to do is defend the United States.

Liberalism is a mental and moral handicap.

I <3 Invert for putting what I feel/think into writing.

This should be in the Fun Forum as well as here.

However, I still believe the coincedence of the 5 released women has a HELL of a lot to do w/this random journalist chick. 

It does not necessarily follow that the US has had no attacks on their soil because the US attacked Afghanistan. That is really bad logic. A better argument might be: we have had no attacks on our own soil because of the war in Iraq, which has distracted terrorists.

Unfortunately, terrorists are not discouraged by you killing them or their comrades; America, of course, would like to believe that. If anything, it just makes their cause stronger. Their beliefs of the after-life seem quite lucrative especially when one dies for such a cause. There may not be an unlimited amount of terrorists, but I'm sure many more people have been converted to terrorists as a result of this war (speculative, but there seems to be plenty of evidence).

Invert is a victim of using feeling as fact as well, "To me it's not pointless and it works," so I very much doubt it is something liberals only do.

I agree that more people convert to terrorism, but it is still possible that if you remove their leaders in a quick enough manner some people might wake up to the fact that terrorism isn't a good choice.
They'd also have to be eduated in some manner

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
We have Arta screaming that "the war on terrorism is pointless" when in fact since the United States declared the war on terrorism the United Stated has not had another terror attack. To me it's not pointless and it works.
[/quote]

For someone purporting to be applying logic, that's a pretty silly thing to say.

First, it's simply wrong:

[quote]
2002
    June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
    May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
    May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
    June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
    Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
    Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn, in Amman Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
[/quote]

See: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html.

So, in the 4ish years since 9/11, the US has suffered 7 terrorist attacks. In the previous 4 years, you only had 3! So, since the beginning of the war on terrorism, there have been more terrorist attacks against US targets than before. Wow, that was predictable, wasn't it?

Second, your logic is flawed. See post hoc. "After the war on terrorism started, there have been no terrorist attacks. Therefore the war on terrorism prevents terrorist attacks." Well, no, not really.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=14001.msg143296#msg143296 date=1138318415]
It does not necessarily follow that the US has had no attacks on their soil because the US attacked Afghanistan. That is really bad logic. A better argument might be: we have had no attacks on our own soil because of the war in Iraq, which has distracted terrorists.

Unfortunately, terrorists are not discouraged by you killing them or their comrades; America, of course, would like to believe that. If anything, it just makes their cause stronger. Their beliefs of the after-life seem quite lucrative especially when one dies for such a cause. There may not be an unlimited amount of terrorists, but I'm sure many more people have been converted to terrorists as a result of this war (speculative, but there seems to be plenty of evidence).

Invert is a victim of using feeling as fact as well, "To me it's not pointless and it works," so I very much doubt it is something liberals only do.
[/quote]

It makes perfect logical sense. The United States stopped all the terror training camps in Afghanistan, the United States eliminated the terrorist government that was running the place that supported terrorist acts in the United States. Are you telling me that attacking those elements in Afghanistan did not help the United States prevent more terror attacks?

You say "I'm sure many more people have been converted to terrorists as a result of this war". I say I'm sure you can't prove that so you can not possibly be sure.

How can something be speculative and the same time have plenty of evidence? This is prime example of liberal garbage.

I'm not using feelings. I'm telling you that it's a fact that for me the war on terrorism is working because neither I nor my country have not been attacked by terrorists since the declaration of the war on terror.

Thank you for taking so much time to respond.  The first thing I should say is that I'm using the words "force" and "violence" interchangably, which was a mistake on my part, and I apologize. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
iago also wrote "I didn't say 'violence won't stop a terrorist', obviously it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different." According to him "force" will not stop terror attacks but "violence" will. According to iago he believes that there is no relation between a terrorist and terrorism.
[/quote]
You're correct, I believe that killing a single terrorist isn't going to make any difference to terrorism.

I'll draw this out a little, just so you understand:

Let's say you have a town with a whole bunch of people driving cars poorly.  There are constantly more people entering the city, driving their own cars poorly. 

Now, let's say that a car is driving directly towards you, and it's about to kill you.  Luckily, you manager to get out of the way just in time, and avoid getting killed.  In the process, the driver hits a wall and dies.  Yes, that stops a bad driver, but it doesn't stop bad drivers. 

Now, another similar example.  There's a city with lots of drivers, and more are entering.  One of the cars breaks down and is no longer usable.  That stopped a driver, but it didn't stop the drivers.

Does that help you understand the difference between parts and a whole?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
iago uses the argument that if you kill one more will come. You are right more will come, but there is not an unlimited amount of terrorists so in that case you kill more that come. It's called discouraging the enemy.
[/quote]
This is probably the main issue, then.  The more you attack terrorists, the more they know that they're getting their point across.  Because they know they're pissing you off, they'll be able to encourage more people to help them. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
Pay attention to the things iago writes; "If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA." Should we take him and his arguments seriously?
[/quote]
If you commit genocide, should I be happy to accept it?


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
This sort of non-logical liberal thinking is why I consider it to be a mental disability.
[.....]
It seems that logic is the liberal's worst enemy so they do not support it.
[/quote]
It's a good thing that I'm not a Liberal, then.  But because you are attacking me as a person, rather than the argument in question, let's let this get more off-topic while I explain a little about myself. 

There are liberal policies that I agree with, and there are conservative policies that I agree with.  I like to commit something called, "free thinking," where I either consider all possibilities, or I consider the weaker possibility. 

Generally, I'll take the obviously weak side of arguments.  Around here, a lot of people take the side of Conservatives, so I take the side of Liberals.  Does that say anything about me?  No.  I don't believe that terrorism is a good thing, far from it.  I'd be happy if you guys could successfully kill every terrorist.  But what's the fun in arguing that?  There isn't any. 


On a sidenote, I looked up the definition of Liberal:
[quote]# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.[/quote]
Is it such a bad thing being free from bigotry, open for reform, and broad-minded?  Are you actually supporting bigotry and close-mindedness?  It sure sounds like you are, by being against Liberals.  I guess being open-minded in a country like the US is a bad thing, though. 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143305#msg143305 date=1138319395]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
We have Arta screaming that "the war on terrorism is pointless" when in fact since the United States declared the war on terrorism the United Stated has not had another terror attack. To me it's not pointless and it works.
[/quote]

For someone purporting to be applying logic, that's a pretty silly thing to say.

First, it's simply wrong:

[quote]
2002
    June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
    May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
    May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
    June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
    Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
    Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn, in Amman Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
[/quote]

See: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html.

So, in the 4ish years since 9/11, the US has suffered 7 terrorist attacks. In the previous 4 years, you only had 3! So, since the beginning of the war on terrorism, there have been more terrorist attacks against US targets than before. Wow, that was predictable, wasn't it?

Second, your logic is flawed. See post hoc. "After the war on terrorism started, there have been no terrorist attacks. Therefore the war on terrorism prevents terrorist attacks." Well, no, not really.
[/quote]

There has not been an attack in the United States is what I was talking about. You can say that every U.S. soldier shot at in Iraq or all over the world is an attack on the United States, but that's not what I was talking about.

Post hoc is coincidental correlation, since you cannot prove what I said is not a coincidental correlation you can't say that my logic is flawed.

You said "Well, no, not really." and your proof of that is where?

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143310#msg143310 date=1138320785]
Thank you for taking so much time to respond.  The first thing I should say is that I'm using the words "force" and "violence" interchangably, which was a mistake on my part, and I apologize. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
iago also wrote "I didn't say 'violence won't stop a terrorist', obviously it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different." According to him "force" will not stop terror attacks but "violence" will. According to iago he believes that there is no relation between a terrorist and terrorism.
[/quote]
You're correct, I believe that killing a single terrorist isn't going to make any difference to terrorism.

I'll draw this out a little, just so you understand:

Let's say you have a town with a whole bunch of people driving cars poorly.  There are constantly more people entering the city, driving their own cars poorly. 

Now, let's say that a car is driving directly towards you, and it's about to kill you.  Luckily, you manager to get out of the way just in time, and avoid getting killed.  In the process, the driver hits a wall and dies.  Yes, that stops a bad driver, but it doesn't stop bad drivers. 

Now, another similar example.  There's a city with lots of drivers, and more are entering.  One of the cars breaks down and is no longer usable.  That stopped a driver, but it didn't stop the drivers.

Does that help you understand the difference between parts and a whole?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
iago uses the argument that if you kill one more will come. You are right more will come, but there is not an unlimited amount of terrorists so in that case you kill more that come. It's called discouraging the enemy.
[/quote]
This is probably the main issue, then.  The more you attack terrorists, the more they know that they're getting their point across.  Because they know they're pissing you off, they'll be able to encourage more people to help them. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
Pay attention to the things iago writes; "If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA." Should we take him and his arguments seriously?
[/quote]
If you commit genocide, should I be happy to accept it?


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143288#msg143288 date=1138316995]
This sort of non-logical liberal thinking is why I consider it to be a mental disability.
[.....]
It seems that logic is the liberal's worst enemy so they do not support it.
[/quote]
It's a good thing that I'm not a Liberal, then.  But because you are attacking me as a person, rather than the argument in question, let's let this get more off-topic while I explain a little about myself. 

There are liberal policies that I agree with, and there are conservative policies that I agree with.  I like to commit something called, "free thinking," where I either consider all possibilities, or I consider the weaker possibility. 

Generally, I'll take the obviously weak side of arguments.  Around here, a lot of people take the side of Conservatives, so I take the side of Liberals.  Does that say anything about me?  No.  I don't believe that terrorism is a good thing, far from it.  I'd be happy if you guys could successfully kill every terrorist.  But what's the fun in arguing that?  There isn't any. 


On a sidenote, I looked up the definition of Liberal:
[quote]# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.[/quote]
Is it such a bad thing being free from bigotry, open for reform, and broad-minded?  Are you actually supporting bigotry and close-mindedness?  It sure sounds like you are, by being against Liberals.  I guess being open-minded in a country like the US is a bad thing, though. 
[/quote]

The 1st part of your post is absolutely garbage to me and I am not going to take time to explain to you how that example is flawed. It is just not worth my time.

The 2nd part I will reply to.
You need to read my post more carefully than you will notice that I attack the liberal thinking and not you as a person.

Liberalism is not practiced the way it is written. Take a look at the definition of Communism, it looks amazing on paper.
But this whole thing is an entirely separate topic that I am not going to get into.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143312#msg143312 date=1138320935]
There has not been an attack in the United States is what I was talking about. You can say that every U.S. soldier shot at in Iraq or all over the world is an attack on the United States, but that's not what I was talking about.
[/quote]

That's just even more ridiculous than your last argument. Prior to 9/11, there hadn't been a terrorist attack in the US perpetrated by a foreign national for 25 years... is the war on terrorism retroactive?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143312#msg143312 date=1138320935]
Post hoc is coincidental correlation, since you cannot prove what I said is not a coincidental correlation you can't say that my logic is flawed.
[/quote]

No, it's not. Cum hoc is correlation, post hoc is causation. You are saying that the war on terrorism caused a lack of terrorism. I'm saying that, since in the 25 years prior to 9/11, there was also a lack of acts of terrorism purpetrated by foreign nationals. Therefore it's not sensible to say that the war on terrorism has prevented anything.

I'm discounting Timothy McVeigh here, because after after the Oklahoma City bombing, the federal government did not declare war on New York State.

Additionally, since you are a supporter of the war on terrorism, I feel that the burden of proof lies on you to prove the efficacy of your solution.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143314#msg143314 date=1138321685]
The 1st part of your post is absolutely garbage to me and I am not going to take time to explain to you how that example is flawed. It is just not worth my time.
[/quote]

Fair enough, and I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your posts because I don't agree with your example.  I'm glad we're both happy. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143314#msg143314 date=1138321685]
Liberalism is not practiced the way it is written. Take a look at the definition of Communism, it looks amazing on paper.
But this whole thing is an entirely separate topic that I am not going to get into.
[/quote]
I have to admit, I practice liberalism exactly how that definition is written.  I'm not a political Liberal, because I don't like the ones I've seen, but I have to say that I think in way that the liberal definition says. 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143320#msg143320 date=1138322242]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143312#msg143312 date=1138320935]
There has not been an attack in the United States is what I was talking about. You can say that every U.S. soldier shot at in Iraq or all over the world is an attack on the United States, but that's not what I was talking about.
[/quote]

That's just even more ridiculous than your last argument. Prior to 9/11, there hadn't been a terrorist attack in the US perpetrated by a foreign national for 25 years... is the war on terrorism retroactive?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143312#msg143312 date=1138320935]
Post hoc is coincidental correlation, since you cannot prove what I said is not a coincidental correlation you can't say that my logic is flawed.
[/quote]

No, it's not. Cum hoc is correlation, post hoc is causation. You are saying that the war on terrorism caused a lack of terrorism. I'm saying that, since in the 25 years prior to 9/11, there was also a lack of acts of terrorism purpetrated by foreign nationals. Therefore it's not sensible to say that the war on terrorism has prevented anything.

I'm discounting Timothy McVeigh here, because after after the Oklahoma City bombing, the federal government did not declare war on New York State.

Additionally, since you are a supporter of the war on terrorism, I feel that the burden of proof lies on you to prove the efficacy of your solution.

[/quote]

Arta can you be any more wrong about everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Correlation implies causation, also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I don't care how you feel. If you bring up that "the war on terrorism is pointless" you should grace us with some proof.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143301#msg143301 date=1138318903]
I agree that more people convert to terrorism, but it is still possible that if you remove their leaders in a quick enough manner some people might wake up to the fact that terrorism isn't a good choice.
They'd also have to be eduated in some manner
[/quote]

I agree, but the key is removing their leaders quickly--which the US has not done. Education might work as well.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143307#msg143307 date=1138320053]
It makes perfect logical sense. The United States stopped all the terror training camps in Afghanistan, the United States eliminated the terrorist government that was running the place that supported terrorist acts in the United States. Are you telling me that attacking those elements in Afghanistan did not help the United States prevent more terror attacks?
[/quote]

No I'm not saying the United States prevented more terror attacks by attacking Afghanistan, because that is just speculation (and bad logic). I'm taking a conservative approach that the United States probably hasn't really stopped terrorist attacks from happening on their soil because they attacked Afghanistan. You are taking a liberal approach. If anything, there has been a surge of terrorist activity, just not on US soil but certainly targeted at the US and its allies.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143307#msg143307 date=1138320053]
You say "I'm sure many more people have been converted to terrorists as a result of this war". I say I'm sure you can't prove that so you can not possibly be sure.
[/quote]

Yes, I mention that is speculation (notice the parentheses after the sentence), but say there is evidence that supports that assertion from people who have more knowledge of this than you and I.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143307#msg143307 date=1138320053]
How can something be speculative and the same time have plenty of evidence? This is prime example of liberal garbage.
[/quote]

I don't know what you're talking about, but when I say speculative, I mean that it is something you take to be true but don't have enough or the right evidence to prove it. So perhaps what ever you're talking about does not have enough evidence (which you should provide).

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143307#msg143307 date=1138320053]
I'm not using feelings. I'm telling you that it's a fact that for me the war on terrorism is working because neither I nor my country have not been attacked by terrorists since the declaration of the war on terror.
[/quote]

Notice that you use the phrase "for me." That means there must exist some person that it is NOT a fact for them the war on terrorism is working because neither them nor you nor their country/your country have not been attacked by terrorists since the declaration of war on terror. "For me" is your feeling that you take for fact. I don't believe this because it is horrible logic.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143346#msg143346 date=1138335457]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
[/quote]

You're right, I didn't remember that - but I think my point still applies. I don't accept your arbitrary distinction between terrorist acts off or on US soil. Since the war on terror started, more acts of terror have be purpetrated against US citizens, and I think that speaks for itself.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143346#msg143346 date=1138335457]
Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation"
[/quote]

Sure, ok, my bad - but you conviniently overlook the alternative that most aptly names the fallacy in your logic that I'm trying to point out: false cause.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14001.msg143346#msg143346 date=1138335457]
I don't care how you feel. If you bring up that "the war on terrorism is pointless" you should grace us with some proof.
[/quote]

And again... you're asserting that this solution is effective. You should demonstrate that. I'm saying that this solution is worse than doing nothing, and I consider the difference in the numbers of terrorist attacks before and during to be good evidence to support my point.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143310#msg143310 date=1138320785]
If you commit genocide, should I be happy to accept it?
[/quote]
What did you do to stop Saddam?  Did you just accept it & turn away?  Georege W. Bush & the USA didn't.


Also, you know we've been discussing liberal in the political sense.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143378#msg143378 date=1138362511]
You're right, I didn't remember that - but I think my point still applies. I don't accept your arbitrary distinction between terrorist acts off or on US soil. Since the war on terror started, more acts of terror have be purpetrated against US citizens, and I think that speaks for itself.
[/quote]
Hmm, it's hard to expect the US's war on terrorism to stop terrorism all over the world, at least, not in the short-term.  They're doing a lot more to protect US soil than they are doing to protect their citizens abroad.  I'm not sure how that's going to turn out, but it should be interesting. 

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143397#msg143397 date=1138376008]
What did you do to stop Saddam?  Did you just accept it & turn away?  Georege W. Bush & the USA didn't.
[/quote]
Sure they did.  For over 20 years while the US was allied with Saddam, they stood by and did nothing even though they knew Saddam was killing massive amounts of people.  It wasn't until GWB came into power that he lied about an excuse to take Saddam out of power.  I still don't really understand what changed..

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143398#msg143398 date=1138377227]
Sure they did.  For over 20 years while the US was allied with Saddam, they stood by and did nothing even though they knew Saddam was killing massive amounts of people.  It wasn't until GWB came into power that he lied about an excuse to take Saddam out of power.  I still don't really understand what changed..
[/quote]

Saddam Hussein broke the Opec ranks and decided to sell oil at his own prices.

Now is it all clear?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14001.msg143401#msg143401 date=1138379268]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143398#msg143398 date=1138377227]
Sure they did.  For over 20 years while the US was allied with Saddam, they stood by and did nothing even though they knew Saddam was killing massive amounts of people.  It wasn't until GWB came into power that he lied about an excuse to take Saddam out of power.  I still don't really understand what changed..
[/quote]

Saddam Hussein broke the Opec ranks and decided to sell oil at his own prices.

Now is it all clear?
[/quote]

But didn't the US attack Iraq for 9/11? 

(Joking, by the way)

Of course they did.

Terrorists attacked us, we're attacking the terrorists. Sure the reason for us going in wasn't very good but now that we're there we are going to erradicate any form of terrorism there.  THAT's why we're there and that's exactly what we're going to do like it or not.

We're buying thier oil from them at market value but this war is about oil right?

Also about us standing by and watching him kill people, blame the old president and blame congress. Don't think it's very logical to criticize a war because of what past presidents did..

Perhaps our current president and the rest of the americans recieved a wakeup call on 9/11 and we realized "Hey we have the military power and money to take these guys out" the best way to take care of any problem is at it's source and that's picking off people funding or harboring terrorists.

Like I said you can make all the stupid topics you want and giggle amongst each other but is still doesn't change that we are in iraq and we arn't going anywhere until we eliminate the idiots who fucked with us. Simple as that.

Just because the United States didn't attack Iraq first doesn't mean the US Government are not terrorists in one way or another :p

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143398#msg143398 date=1138377227]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14001.msg143378#msg143378 date=1138362511]
You're right, I didn't remember that - but I think my point still applies. I don't accept your arbitrary distinction between terrorist acts off or on US soil. Since the war on terror started, more acts of terror have be purpetrated against US citizens, and I think that speaks for itself.
[/quote]
Hmm, it's hard to expect the US's war on terrorism to stop terrorism all over the world, at least, not in the short-term.  They're doing a lot more to protect US soil than they are doing to protect their citizens abroad.  I'm not sure how that's going to turn out, but it should be interesting. 
[/quote]
Why shouldn't we do the most to protect ourselves? 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143398#msg143398 date=1138377227]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143397#msg143397 date=1138376008]
What did you do to stop Saddam?  Did you just accept it & turn away?  Georege W. Bush & the USA didn't.
[/quote]
Sure they did.  For over 20 years while the US was allied with Saddam, they stood by and did nothing even though they knew Saddam was killing massive amounts of people.  It wasn't until GWB came into power that he lied about an excuse to take Saddam out of power.  I still don't really understand what changed..
[/quote]
They who?  What?
It seems as though you're trying to pont the finger back, you asked if you should happily accept us committing genocide if we did.
I pointed out that you probably would as would most of the world til somebody finally does something about it.



[quote author=Warrior link=topic=14001.msg143407#msg143407 date=1138382532]
Of course they did.

Terrorists attacked us, we're attacking the terrorists. Sure the reason for us going in wasn't very good but now that we're there we are going to erradicate any form of terrorism there. THAT's why we're there and that's exactly what we're going to do like it or not.

We're buying thier oil from them at market value but this war is about oil right?

Also about us standing by and watching him kill people, blame the old president and blame congress. Don't think it's very logical to criticize a war because of what past presidents did..

Perhaps our current president and the rest of the americans recieved a wakeup call on 9/11 and we realized "Hey we have the military power and money to take these guys out" the best way to take care of any problem is at it's source and that's picking off people funding or harboring terrorists.

Like I said you can make all the stupid topics you want and giggle amongst each other but is still doesn't change that we are in iraq and we arn't going anywhere until we eliminate the idiots who fucked with us. Simple as that.
[/quote]
Word, righting a wrong, is that bad?...maybe black people still shouldn't vote.


[quote author=dx link=topic=14001.msg143410#msg143410 date=1138384457]
Just because the United States didn't attack Iraq first doesn't mean the US Government are not terrorists in one way or another :p
[/quote]
Traditionally terrorists have always been private organizations whom intentionally attack civilians, so no, the US Government is not a terrorist organization.

If you mean that we use force to intimidate the enemy into giving up, then yes we are terrorists.  Further moe, any and all countries/governments that have ever participated in ANY sort of forceful conflict are terrorists as well.  Your local police are terrorists.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143413#msg143413 date=1138385677]
Why shouldn't we do the most to protect ourselves?
[/quote]

Why shouldn't the innocent people in the Middle East protect themselves? I don't know what I would do if I was minding my own business at my residence when a bomb explodes down the road for no apparent reason..Actually, I do know what i would do I would train terrorists!!! yes that is exactly what I would do.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=14001.msg143407#msg143407 date=1138382532]
Of course they did.

Terrorists attacked us, we're attacking the terrorists. Sure the reason for us going in wasn't very good but now that we're there we are going to erradicate any form of terrorism there.  THAT's why we're there and that's exactly what we're going to do like it or not.
[/quote]

Uhh, no?  The terrorists were never in Iraq, or condoned by the Iraqi government.  Saddam and his government are non-religious, and have taken no part in the Taliban's religious war.  Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. 

Americans would not be willing to go to war for oil.
The terrorists, having their own agenda, solved that little problem for us.
If only we could concoct a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, we can kill two birds with one stone.
Hmm, didn't one of the terrorists get treated in a Bagdad hospital once?
Yes Mr President he did, but Iraqi government didn't know about it until he was released and gone.
Ah, no problem, Iraqi is aiding and comforting the terrorists, and I promised no borders would be safe if anyone helped the terrorists.
Let's use that excuse, if I sound stupid enough on TV, people will believe me.
Yes Mr President, you're the champion of sounding stupid.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143429#msg143429 date=1138393212]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=14001.msg143407#msg143407 date=1138382532]
Of course they did.

Terrorists attacked us, we're attacking the terrorists. Sure the reason for us going in wasn't very good but now that we're there we are going to erradicate any form of terrorism there.  THAT's why we're there and that's exactly what we're going to do like it or not.
[/quote]

Uhh, no?  The terrorists were never in Iraq, or condoned by the Iraqi government.  Saddam and his government are non-religious, and have taken no part in the Taliban's religious war.  Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. 
[/quote]

It's bigger than the taliban, yea obviously from all the car bombings and abudctions and requests to pull soldiers out of iraq or have people beheaded on tape means that there are no terrorists in iraq right!?

Also you can theorize all you want about "What could have happened" but until you can find hard solid evidence proving this war as a way to "kill two birds with one stone" thats all it will be a theory.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=14001.msg143442#msg143442 date=1138398924]
It's bigger than the taliban, yea obviously from all the car bombings and abudctions and requests to pull soldiers out of iraq or have people beheaded on tape means that there are no terrorists in iraq right!?

Also you can theorize all you want about "What could have happened" but until you can find hard solid evidence proving this war as a way to "kill two birds with one stone" thats all it will be a theory.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that AFTER you invaded their home country and killed 30,000 of their people?  If the US attacked Canada and occupied my country, I'd to everything I could to get rid of you.  If the US was invaded and occupied by another country (say, by Iraq), I'm sure the American citizens would do everything they could to get rid of the occupying force. 

I believe the onus of proof is on the person who wants to demonstrate something.  Can you prove the connection between Iraq and 9/11?  There's no real way I can prove that they AREN'T connected, in the same way I can't prove that my remote control doesn't exist, only that I can't find it.

Actually, according to a resolution by your government:

[quote]members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
....
the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
....
Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself
[/quote]

That's an exerpt from the resolution that the United States Congress passed authorizing the war in Iraq. 

It's amazing how much lies and deception were involved in that war, it really is...

iago, wasn't it you that said we have no responsibility to judge Chinese laws & such?  Why are you judging ours?


Also, I'd like to note that most of the terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia (I believe its there, there or Sudan).

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143452#msg143452 date=1138403181]
iago, wasn't it you that said we have no responsibility to judge Chinese laws & such?  Why are you judging ours?
[/quote]
What laws am I judging, exactly?

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143460#msg143460 date=1138403600]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143452#msg143452 date=1138403181]
iago, wasn't it you that said we have no responsibility to judge Chinese laws & such?  Why are you judging ours?
[/quote]
What laws am I judging, exactly?
[/quote]
The resolution, or w/e it was, that congress passed allowing us to go into Iraq & to fight the war on terrorism

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143463#msg143463 date=1138403754]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143460#msg143460 date=1138403600]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143452#msg143452 date=1138403181]
iago, wasn't it you that said we have no responsibility to judge Chinese laws & such?  Why are you judging ours?
[/quote]
What laws am I judging, exactly?
[/quote]
The resolution, or w/e it was, that congress passed allowing us to go into Iraq & to fight the war on terrorism
[/quote]
That's not a law, though.  It's just a series of lies put forward by your government in order to go to war with another country. 

I prefer my government honest, which is probably why I hate politicians. 

The resolution is law which was influenced by what information (whether right or wrong) was shown to congress

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143463#msg143463 date=1138403754]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143460#msg143460 date=1138403600]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143452#msg143452 date=1138403181]
iago, wasn't it you that said we have no responsibility to judge Chinese laws & such?  Why are you judging ours?
[/quote]
What laws am I judging, exactly?
[/quote]
The resolution, or w/e it was, that congress passed allowing us to go into Iraq & to fight the war on terrorism
[/quote]
*leans over the edge with this post* So, what stops foreign countries from passing a "resolution" to fight the war on America. Would that country not be labled as a terror organization?

No, that country would be called ...................................
*jeporady theme song*







a country.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143517#msg143517 date=1138463288]
No, that country would be called ...................................
*jeporady theme song*

a country.
[/quote]

Then why is it that, when they attack your country, you think they're absolute scum? 

They aren't insane, they're fighting a war to the best of their ability. 

What country is at war with us?..........


SIDE NOTE:
You are sorta insane if you're attacking the US of A

Yea because an individual country instead of an orchastrated terrorist attack hit us correct?

Also REGARDLESS of why we went in there, there are insurgents and THEN THERE ARE terrorists. It's natural for there to be insurgency since we are occupying a country but when they abduct people and turn thier beheading into the 6:00 tv show then there's a problem. I don't get what you guys can't grasp.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143522#msg143522 date=1138464298]
What country is at war with us?..........


SIDE NOTE:
You are sorta insane if you're attacking the US of A
[/quote]

Why do you think they have to resort to guerilla-style attacks (what your government calls Terrorism)?  They make small attacks that you can't really defend against, similar to what the Bajorans did during the Cardassian occupation.  That's the only way to fight a large power like the US, but it quickly gets you branded as a terrorist and considered scum.  I think that the fact that they're willing to sacrifice their lives to help their people is noble. 

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=14001.msg143524#msg143524 date=1138464780]
Yea because an individual country instead of an orchastrated terrorist attack hit us correct?

Also REGARDLESS of why we went in there, there are insurgents and THEN THERE ARE terrorists. It's natural for there to be insurgency since we are occupying a country but when they abduct people and turn thier beheading into the 6:00 tv show then there's a problem. I don't get what you guys can't grasp.


[/quote]
They don't represent any specific government, but I don't think that really matters.

And yes, they need to shock people.  Americans are pretty desensitized, so it takes something extremely shocking to piss them off.  And yes, beheadings work.  Of course, I don't see any reason to play it on TV.  What, exactly, is the point of the media playing the beheading tapes? 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143526#msg143526 date=1138465403]
Why do you think they have to resort to guerilla-style attacks (what your government calls Terrorism)? They make small attacks that you can't really defend against, similar to what the Bajorans did during the Cardassian occupation. That's the only way to fight a large power like the US, but it quickly gets you branded as a terrorist and considered scum. I think that the fact that they're willing to sacrifice their lives to help their people is noble.
[/quote]
I believe guerilla warfare is aimed mostly at the opposing armed force.
Terroris is focused at the civilians.
And the ONLY reason they're "branded terrorists" IS BECAUSE THEY FUCKING ARE!  They kill innocent civilians ruthlessly.  They fucking blow their God damned selves up at funerals for the their last victims!
I don't know how in the fuck you can call that noble. 

Say it one more time that what they are doing is noble & I feel I might just have to make my noble cause heard around the world & kill every fucking God damn POS leftist that ever took a breath on my beautiful American soil.




[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143526#msg143526 date=1138465403]
They don't represent any specific government, but I don't think that really matters.

And yes, they need to shock people. Americans are pretty desensitized, so it takes something extremely shocking to piss them off. And yes, beheadings work. Of course, I don't see any reason to play it on TV. What, exactly, is the point of the media playing the beheading tapes?
[/quote]
dx is who brought up the country thing, so STFU unless you know what you're talking about
[quote author=dx link=topic=14001.msg143480#msg143480 date=1138407375]
*leans over the edge with this post* So, what stops foreign countries from passing a "resolution" to fight the war on America. Would that country not be labled as a terror organization?
[/quote]

[quote author=iago link=topic=14001.msg143526#msg143526 date=1138465403]
They don't represent any specific government, but I don't think that really matters.

And yes, they need to shock people.  Americans are pretty desensitized, so it takes something extremely shocking to piss them off.  And yes, beheadings work.  Of course, I don't see any reason to play it on TV.  What, exactly, is the point of the media playing the beheading tapes? 

[/quote]

If they don't represent a government and attack us..let's see what they are...terorrists and judging by the TYPES of attacks they do it's sure as hell looks like terrorism.

If they do things as SERIOUS as BEHEADING someone to GRAB OUR ATTENTION (hint: Terrorize) then they're terrorists.

The terrorists video tape it, we don't control the media (especially that of other countries) so we cant stop it's eventual leakage.

Maybe we should grab someone from UK, Canada, and wherever the hell else, stuff them in a cave with a terrorists and make a home movie out of it to see if you guys still think they are just "protecting thier country". This is pathetic.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143531#msg143531 date=1138466192]
I believe guerilla warfare is aimed mostly at the opposing armed force.
[/quote]

I believe they have been killing people from the US armed forces. As well as those maintaining the occupation (police etc). Among other things.

I also would like to point out, that since Hamas now represents a government, they can obviously no longer be a terrorist organization. Any actions they decide to take are legal.

There are more requirements than jsut being not a country.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143662#msg143662 date=1138551058]
There are more requirements than jsut being not a country.
[/quote]

Such as?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=14001.msg143690#msg143690 date=1138564795]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143662#msg143662 date=1138551058]
There are more requirements than jsut being not a country.
[/quote]

Such as?
[/quote]
I've said it before, maybe I can find a link.

EDIT:
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143531#msg143531 date=1138466192]
...
Terroris is focused at the civilians.
...They kill innocent civilians ruthlessly.  They fucking blow their God damned selves up at funerals for the their last victims!...
[/quote]
Maybe someone should use the search feature of the forum

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14001.msg143691#msg143691 date=1138564837]
Maybe someone should use the search feature of the forum
[/quote]

Ahh, I thought you were responding to Adron's comment about Hamas now that they represent a people.